validity of Foreign Ordinations And thus having separated their Cause from that of other Protestants I proceed to examine what he urges for it and his first Reason is this I. That the word of God makes not difference between the Bishop and the Presbyter or Pastor of a Church and he cites those Texts Acts 20.7.28 and Tit. 1.5 6 7. to prove that those Names are promiscuously used Three ways have been taken to Answer this Objection 1. That both the Names of Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture denote always the Prelatical Bishop and not the Modern Presbyter 2. That even in Scripture the Names are so distinguished that a mere Presbyter alone is never call'd a Bishop tho' a Bishop is often call'd a Presbyter Both these Opinions have been well defended * By Dr. Hammond and Dr. Taylor and perhaps it is impossible to consute them but to cut off all superfluous Disputes it is enough to Answer 3. That tho' the Names of Bishop and Presbyter are not distinct in Scripture yet it is a very fallacious way of arguing from the indistinction of Names to infer the Identity of Offices St. John the Apostle calls himself twice a * 2d Ep. John v. 1. 3d Ep. v. 1. Presbyter †Rom. 16.7 Andronious Junia and * Phil. 2.25 Epapheaditus who according to this Minister's opinion were only Presbyters are reciprocally call'd Apostles Are the Offices of an Apostle and Presbyter therefore really the same This one instance is a clear Demonstration of the Falshood of that Consequence Though there was a confusion of Names there was yet a distinction of Offices and if that can be proved viz. That in the Apostolical Churches some single Persons had a Pre-eminency of Power and Authority over the other Presbyters it will necessarily follow that that Office to which the Name of Bishops is now appropriated is at least of Apostolical Institution Timothy and Titus * See Jus Divinum Ministerii Anglicani p. 71 72. are granted by all sides to have had such a Superiority and the Presbyterians only pretend that their Office was extraordinary and expired with them but this is affirmed without sufficient Proof for what though Timothy be required to do the Work of an Evangelist can they prove that this signifies any more than a Preacher of the Gospel And if it could be proved to be a Temporary Office how does it appear that his Episcopal Power was a part of that Office or that it was not distinct and separate from it On the contrary it may be proved by a Cloud of Witnesses that this Power was not Temporary but was every where derived by Succession upon single Persons and particulably as to the Succession of Timothy and Titus we have the Confession of Du Moulin * In his 3d. Ep. to Bishop Andrews p. 181 182. That the Episcopal Order was of Apostolical institution and that what name soever we give to Timothy and Titus whether Bishops or Evangelists it is manife that they had Bishops for their Successors and Heirs of their pre-eminency And in fine this precarious Pretence of extraordinary Offices may with equal reason be urg'd as we find it is by Anabaptists Quakers and Socinians against the whole Order of the Ministry and if it be admitted as Mr. * In his Christian Directory cited in the Vnreason of Separ p. 264. Baxter once confess'd we leave room for andaecious Wits to question other Gospel Institutions at Pastors and Sacraments and to say they were but for one Age. The Sum is this there is clear Evldence in Scripture that there were some Officers who had Power of Jurisdiction over Presbyters and therefore the Texts which he produces to shew the Community of Names can be no Argument against it But to justifie Ordination by Presbyter he cites 1 Tim. 4.14 where it is intimated that Timothy was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery To this it is answered * On the brief Account of Church Government in Answer to the writings of the Presbyterians p. 195. c. 1. That Presbytery there is taken for the Office of a Presbyter and so the Sense runs thus neglect not the Gift or Office of a Presbyter which was given thee by Prophecy with the Imposition of hands and this Sense is warranted by the Authority of * Calv. Instit lib. 4. c. 3. sect 16. Calvin and of St. * St Jerom. in Locum Jerome long before him 2. If Presbytery be taken for the Ordainers it may nevertheless be understood of such Presbyters as had a Superior Power over others for as Apostles and Bishops are sometimes called Presbyters so might they Collectively be called Presbytery and accordingly it is observed that the Apostles themselves are called by St Ignatius the Presbytery of the Church 3. It is evident from 2 Tim. 1.6 that St. Paul was the principal if not the only 〈◊〉 ordainer of him and surely it is no good consequence that if Presbyters may assist an Apostle or a Bishop at an Ordmation therefore they may ordain without him He conchides that Augustine Jerome and Chrysostome with many other Greeks and Latins are of his Judgment but he produces no passages out of any of these Authours but asserts roundly that they are all of his mind and 't is as easie to answer that they are all against him however when he shall produce his Testimonies it will be time enough to examine them Secondly He proceeds to justifie his Orders by the Authority of our own and Foreign Churches All our learned Divines at the Reformation from Popery beld that Ordination by the Pastors of Churches he means Presbyters was valid and good Thus he affirms on without proving many Greeks and Latines and all our Divines are only consident Phrases and ought to pass for nothing in short I defie him to produce any one of those Divines that has allowed of Presbyterian Ordinations made in a Schismatical opposition to Bishops and without the Case of necessity But he adds The Twenty third Article of Ministring in the Congregation seems to speak as much That Article declares That it is not lawful to exercise the Ministry without a lawful Calling and that those are lawfully called who are called by Men who have publick Authority given them in the * Quibus potestas publice concessa est in Ecclesia Art Edit 1552 1562. Congnegation i.e. the Church to do it And how impertinent is this Allegation was publick Authority ever given in our Church to Presbyters to ordain Priests or Deacons on the contrary it is expressy provided in the Preface to the * Approved Art 36. and established by Acts of Parl. Reg. Edw. 6. Eliz. p. 58. Form of Ordination in our Liturgy that whereas it is evident unto all Men diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there hath been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and
AN ANSWER TO THE Call to Humiliation OR A VINDICATION OF THE Church of England From the Reproaches and Objections of W. Woodward in Two Fast Sermons Preach'd in his Conventicle at Lemster in the County of Hereford and afterwards Published by him Printed for Edward Robinson Junior Bookseller in Ludlow 1691. AN ANSWER TO THE Call to HVMILIATION OR A Vindication of the Church of England WHEN I first met with this importunate Call to Humiliation I wonder'd how it came into the Head of that Minister to call upon the Church of England in a Conventicle he might as well have call'd upon the Socinian Church in Poland or the Quakers in Pensylvania How absurd was it to summon the Church of England to the Stool of Repentance in a Presbyterian Assembly at Lemster and to proclaim a Fast for Persecution to those whom he pretends were persecuted by her But thô the Church was out of his Audience yet it was matter of great Edification to his Hearers to calumniate and reproach her and I presume at the next gathering he was well rewarded for it See how this Minister keeps his Days of Humiliation he Fasts notoriously for Strife and Debate instead of healing our Wounds he enlarges and enflames them he sets forth the Sufferings of his Dissenters with Hyperbole's and lying aggravations to what purpose but to exulcerate and enrage them as if he were sent in the Spirit of Elijah he calls in effect for Fire from Heaven upon us The Prophanation of our Fast Day was not enough for his Invectives withal he could find but little work of Humiliation for his own Sectaries but with loads of Sackcloth and Ashes he overwhelms our Church and in a word he has laid out his whole Gift of Calling and Clamouring and Railing upon it The best Apology against such a Libel would be Patience and Silence and the best Answer that which Mr. Hooker made to certain Reasons and Raileries of the Puritans to his Reasons No and to his Raileries Nothing But there is sometimes a necessity of answering some Persons according to their folly the applause and triumph with which this Pamphlet has been cried up by his followers the Confidence wherewith they pronounce every thing unanswerable that is not answer'd and the Complement of * p. 27. Dumb Dogs which this Holy Rabshakeh has bestowed upon us do make it necessary to say something in our vindication and to shew how easie it is to defend our Church against the feeble Assaults of a Lemster Conventicle In answer to his Two Sermons as he calls them I will consider 1. His Declamations about Persecution 2. The Reasons and Objections which he pleads for his Non-conformity Days of Humiliation are at all times necessary to the Church of Christ which while it is Militant will be never so far without Spot and Blemish as not to stand in need of publick Explations but when the Judgments of God are either imminent or present and the unbounded wickedness of a Nation do force them down from Heaven then certainly is the time to weep to Sanctify a Fast and to call all the Inhabitants of the Land to a Publick Repentance Our Church on such occasions hath contented her Self to follow the example of Religious Men in Scripture and to prescribe such general Confessions as are universally true of all and particularly applicable to the Case of every one there is a Confession in that last Office so full and comprehensive that no one who is not much in love with Cavil can accuse the insufficiency of it But this Minister is dissatisfied with it he hath searched among * See p. 10 11. the accursed stuff as he stiles it of Ecclesiastical Affairs and after much pains in rummaging * See p. 10 11. he finds that the accursed thing * See p. 10 11. lies hid under the covering of Decency and Order Penal Laws Laws for Vniformity Subscriptions Declarations Liturgies Articles Laws for Ceremonies and Forms of Prayer Thus one whole Constitution is accursed in his Opinion even the Articles of our Religion are not excepted thô approv'd by all the Protestant Churches and Seal'd with the Blood of Martyrs and the Prayers of all Churches for at least 1â—00 Years together have been nothing but Curses and as Achan's Sacriledge an Abomination to the Lord. But Persecution is the great Rock of Offence and he is very angry at the Compilers of the Office because they have not mention'd it in the Confession he cannot forgive a certain * The Bishop of Sarum Bishop in particular who he thinks assisted in composing the Form and had before Declar'd that Persecution had not a little contributed to fill up the measures of the sins of a Church See his Ep. Ded. and p. 11. and that they who were guilty ought seriously to profess their Repentance of it But he observes That he said this before he was a Bishop which is to insinuate that it is no wonder he should now prevaricate and that he was fall'n from Grace by taking a Bishoprick on him But here he had an occasion of shewing his Spight at the Order and even a Reconciling Bishop could have no Quarter from him Now for once let Persecution be as heinous a Sin as he can make it and let it be granted that many Church men have been guilty of it Yet Why must it be particularly confess'd in a general Humiliation Why more than Drunkenness Perjury Blasphemy or Whoredom Would he have every individual Confess that he has been a Persecutor a Drunkard a Blasphemer and a Whoremaster If many are innocent of these Crimes so they are of Persecution There are thousands of Congregations that never persecuted any one and yet this Vnjust Judge would force them to plead Guilty of it Be the Sin never so Epidemical yet why should I confess it if I am not Guilty And as for those that are let him read over the Confessions and he will find they are in general Expressions included in it and general Confessions are sufficient because no others can be accommodated to so many millions of Christians but nothing will please that Minister unless the whole Church lye prostrate at his Feet and submit to the Discipline he imposes and then perhaps he would think her sufficiently humbled and condescend to pardon her Let us now reflect a little on the extremity of their Sufferings as he is pleas'd to represent them and one single Paragraph out of all his Tragical Aggravations will be sufficient He assures us * p. 4. That it is as clear as the Sun that for near 30 years last past 1600 Ministers of the Gospel have suffer'd very hard things upon the account of Conscience by reason of great Fines and long Imprisonments At the Restauration there were many Mininsters ejected who had either intruded themselves into the Freeholds of others or had Vsurp'd their Benefices in the times of Schism and Rebellion without lawful Qualisications
so inhumane as to deny him the attendance of so much as one Chaplain for the performance of Divine offices thô the Good King did often and earnestly Request it which as himself observes in his * In his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Meditations on it was a piece of Rigor and Barbarisme greater than is ever us'd by Christians to the meanest prisoners and greatest malefactors Thus it was that they dealt with their Sovereign and the whole Houshold were Treated no better than the Master of it It is known to all the World how the Episcopal Party were plundred Sequestred Decimated Imprisoned and totally Ruin'd by them With what rigor their rebellious Oaths Covenants Engagements and Abjurations were impos'd and that they were all ejected out of the Churches Colledges Schools and Universities The Lord * Survey of the Leviathan p. 305 Clarendon tells us That the Reverend Bishops who were left alive and out of prison being strip'd of all that was their own preserved themselves from Famine by stooping to the lowest Offices of Teaching Schools and Officiating in private Families for their Bread which together with the Alms of Charitable Persous was the only portion of the poor Bishops and all the faithful Clergy of the Church of England * His Preface to Bishop Mortons defence of Episcopacy p. 39. Sir Henry Yelverton computes and he thought that he was not mistaken that there were 8000 who forsook all for the Covenant and of an 729 Parishes within the Bills of Mortality in Londom 15 were ejected besides the Prebends of St. Pauls and Westminster And now it will not be improper to add the Reply of Arch-Bishop Bramhal to Mr. Baxter's Complaint That the most Learned Godly Painful and Peaceable Men were ejected because they durst not use the Ceremonies Let Mr. B. says he * P. 643. of his Works sum up into one Catalogue all the Nonconformists throughout the Kingdom of England ever since the beginning of the Reformation who have been cast aside at any time because they durst not use the Ceremonies I dare abate him all the rest of the Kingdom and only exhibit the Martyrologies of London and the Two Vniversities or a List of those who in these late intestine Wars have been imprison'd and banish'd by his Party in these three places alone or left to the merciless World to beg their Bread for no other Crime but Loyalty and because they stood affectod to the Ancient Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England and they shall double them for Number and for Learning Piety Industry and the love of Peace exceed them incomparably This is an assertion that shall stand unconfuted for ever and let every one now judge between the Church of England and the Separatists which have been the greatest Persecutors Thus have I been forced to retort the accusation and to make it good by undeniable Proofs against them that I might silence if possible their Hypocritical Clamours and convince their Followers that they are inexcusable in Judging that in others which they do themselves and that of all men they are the unsittest to pull the Mote out of the Churches Eye when the Beam is in their own If Persecution be the accursed Thing why have not the Dissenters themseves appointed Days of Humiliation for it Why do they not give it a Place in their Confessions Is it not strange that in 40 years time they should not express their Repentance And to use this Ministers Expression is it not fit that for one Tear of the Church of England they should drop ten nay an hundred for one It will be objected that some of them of late years have condemn'd all Persecution for Religion but have they ever kept a Day of Humiliation for it Do they not think themselves bound by Covenant to extirpate the whole Government of the Church of England And notwithstanding the Clamours of that Party against Persecution is it not evident that where-ever they get Power they immediately persecute We have two Books already of the History of their Persecutions in Scotland and when to the extirpation of all the Bishops the ruin of Six hundred Ministers and the Desolation of four Universities they shall add the Destruction of the miserable Reliques of that Church I will not say their Story will be much greater than Fox's Martyrology but I think the Dissenters Sufferings will be but an Enchiridion to it In the mean time we have a fair Specimen however of the moderation of that Party whose tender Mercies have been always cruel and a clear Demonstration of what may be expected by us if GOD in His just Judgments should deliver up our Church unto their Fury And yet these are the men that exclaim against Persecution and cry out against the Church of England as cruel and tyrannical but let them remember that Reflection which was long since extorted by their Clamours * Dr. St. Serm. on the Mischief of Separ p. 55. That they want the Ingenuity of Adonibezek to reflect on the Thumbs and Toes which they have cut off from others and think themselves bound to do it again if it were in their Power But after all this Minister though he furiously declaims against Persecution and with so much Malice and Acrimony arraigns the Church of England for it yet if his invectives be well considered one shall find that he no where declares for Liberty of Conscience and that no one ought to be perfecuted for his Religion When he condemns Persecution he adds always * See p. 3 4 6 8 11. for the Truth which is a plain Intimation that Persecution for Error he accounts Lawful if he really does not to what purpose is that Limitation Why did he not openly condemn all Punishments for Conscience but then he would have condemned the constant Doctrine of his Party and though he was too wary to do that yet it would have spoyl'd the design his Sermons if he had spoke out honestly and asserted the Lawfulness of persecuting men for their Errors But if this be his Judgment and that Limitation is a strong Presumption of it then the sum of all is this That the Presbyterians may lawfully persecute all other Churches but must never be persecuted themselves by any because all other Churches are erroneous and the whole Inelosure of Truth is theirs and it is only the Persecution of Truth that is condemned by them It is evident that he himself founds the Iniquity of the severe Proceedings against them upon this ground alone that they suffered for the Truth For to this Objection * p. 11. that the Nonconformists have been buffeted for their Faults his only Reply is this Let 's have a fair Hearing before we be judged the Persecution of Truth is a great Sin wherever 't is found then he immediately proposes the Reasons of their Nonconformity and concludes at last * p. 24. That if in all these Things the Nonconformists are in
the right and have witnessed to the Truth then ought the Church of England to hang down her head c. And thus as he states the case himself if the Dissenters have not witnessed to the Truth the Church of England is not guilty and all their Outcries about Persecution must pass for nothing Here then lies the stress of the dispute Whether the Nonconformists have Truth on their side and were therefore really persecuted for Righteousness-sake I proceed therefore to examine Q. The Reasons and Objections which he pleads for his Non conformity His first Stumbling block is the Subscription in the Act of Vniformity with the Oath in the Oxford Act in which are these Words I. A. B. do declare That it is unlawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King Again I do swear That it is not lawful c. He adds we refused thus to declare and swear and he requires three Things to be observed First A man may believe a Proposition to be true but would not be willing to swear it and this Objection is a perfect Cavil He that asserts a Proposition to be true does mean only that he is convinced of its Truth and he that swears it is true does only call God to witness that he is convinced of it Nothing is more obvious than that in all assertory Oaths when we swear to the Truth of Things we are understood to declare no more than our own Belief and Knowledge concerning them and thus when I swear that it is unlawful to resist nothing more can be understood than that I am fully satisfied of it if I believe it unlawful I may subscribe and declare that it is so and if I cam do that I may also swear it since in this Case an Oath superadded to a Declaration must follow the nature of the Principal and can be nothing else but a Sacred Confirmation of my sincerity in declaring and I am morally certain that no Magistrate in England would have refused to administer the Oath with this Interpretation Secondly he objects that Barclay Grotius and others who have written in favour of Kings do yet allow some Cases in which it is lawful to resist them and if a King does govern by his Will and not by Law he doth excidere de jure that is he forfeits his Right to Govern I answer that an Arbitrary King does forfeit his Right is affirmed by neither of these Authors but is contradicted by them and though it be true that Barelay Grotius and others whether Republicans Jesuits or Presbyterians have allowed Exceptions for resisting yet I am sure the Holy Ghost has made none in Scripture they that resist shall receive Damnation is denounced without any Limitation and how shall we limit where GOD hath not limited or distinguish where He hath not distinguished So was the Rule understood and practiced by the first and best of Christians so was it taught by the first Reformers of our Church and some of them with their Blood bore witness to it The Popes were the first Christians that taught Resistance but though an Augel from Heaven had taught it we have received another Doctrine and could not have departed from it Thirdly he adds That all the Nobility and Gentry of England and Scotland and all the Protestant Princes beyond Sea in their Proceedings against King James have justified the Nonconformists in refusing the Oath Now I have no Correspondence with all these Princes Nobility and Gentry and therefore know not their minds about it but I am sure he cannot make good his all without taking Sanctuary in Hyperbole There be many that think those Proceedings may be justified without justifying Resistance but I believe there are no Princes that will allow it against themselves and if the Majority of the Nobility and Gentry do justifie what they once condemn'd their Authority can be urged on neither side and though there he a Revolution of Opinions as well as Governments yet the nature of Things is immutable and Truth the same yesterday to day and for ever His Second scruple is about Reordination as tho' Ordination by Presbyters were not sufficient without the laying on of the hands of those we now call Bishops But first since this Minister hath now undertaken to argue he should have prov'd that Reordination implys a Nullity of their former Orders But as no Declaration of their insufficiency is requir'd so neither is it imply'd in the nature of the thing nor understood to be so by Construction of the Fact as appears from the Reordination of many French Ministers whose Orders have never been condemned by our Church who never intended to renource them by that Action nor are supposed to do so Secondly tho' the Ordination of Presbyters be granted to be sufficient yet this will not justify the Nonconformists Ordinations There is all evidnet difference betwixt the Case of these Ministers and the Presbyters of some Foreign Churches 1. Those Foreign Divines tho' their Churches are not under Episcopal Government yet they do not separate from Episcopal Communion but have all own'd Commun on with the Church of England Blondel their best Advocate for Presbyterian Parity does yet condemn Separation from Bishop as Schismatical and expresly * Praef. ad Apol. p. 59. declares that Aerius was therefore an Heretick because he asserted That separation was to be made from those who admitted any difference between Bishops and Presbyters But their approving of Episcopal Government and coadmning Separation from it as Schismatical has been so often so irrefragably * Ibid p. 47 and Bramhall's Replication to affirm the Bishop of Chalcedon p. 164 of his Works proved that there can be no longer any Controversie about it But on the other side the present Nonconformists do make Episcopal Government the chief reason of their Separation and condemn it as unlawful and Antichristian which no Resormed Church or Divine that we know did ever before them and this is certainly a very material difference between them 2. The Ordination of Presbyters withou Bishops in those Foreign Churches has been generally defended by the plea of Necessity thus it has been defended by some of the Foreign †Bishop Hall's and Mortons Bcoks in defence of Eiscopacy Archbishop Bramhall in his Sup. Dr. Durell's Church Government Saywell's Evangelical and Catholick Unity and lately in the Judgment of Foreign reformed Divines Divines themselves and thus by many * As Downham Mason Field Andrews and leately by Dr. Sherlock in his Vindication of the defence of Dr. Still Divines of our own Church As their circumstances were it was impossible for them to have Bishops and therefore they wanted them out of invincible necessity whereas our Presbyterians are uncapal le of that Plea they reject the Authority of Bishops and Ordain in opposition to them and therefore it is evident they are under no necessity and consequently their Orders may be thought in ufficient without impeaching the
Deacons therefore to the intent these Orders should be continued and reverently used and esteemed in the Church of England it is requisite that no Man shall execute any of them excep the be called tryed examined and admitted according to the Form hereafter following and I hope it is evident from that form that a Bishop is necessary to Ordination He goes on and affirms That the French Belgick and Helvetick Churches besides many others are of his Judgment All the other Protestant Churches excepting only Geneva have Episoopal Government and that they allow Ordination by Presbyters in opposition to it is an Assertion that may well be thought incredible till it be sufficiently proved and as for the Churches he mentions their Divines account the Non-Conformists Ordinations Schismatical and the best defence of their own is necessity But he needs not name the Church of Scotland for Scotland says he hath justified all our Non-Conformity By Scotland he means the Presbyterian party of that Kingdom * See the Letters about the Persecution Scotland p. 58. the lesser part for the whole but however if Scotland justifies them it is the only Church in the world that do so Lastly He adds our Diocesan Bishops may glory over us as the Kings Bishops or Bishops of the State which is just the Raillery of the Papists Parliament Bishops and Nags-head Bishops But are our Bishops ordained by the King and State are they not Christ's Bishops and Scripture Bishops No for this new Apostle of Patmos does Peremptorily tell them that they must not pretend to be so near in Blood to the Scripture Bishops of the first Two hundred years as the Pastors of single Congregations But with Submission to his Apostleship I reply that the * Jus Divin Minis Aug. 71. Presbyterian Assembly have granted that Timothy and Titus had super out Authority over Presbyters and therefore our Bishops having the same Authority may pretend to Kindred with them 2. * Ibid. p. 140. They acknowledge also after Blondel that above 140 years after Christ Bishops were set over Presbyters so that they grant them to be introduced within 40 or 50 years after the decease of all the Apostles 3. The Epistles of Ignatius who was Contemporary with the Apostles and suffered Martyrdom within nine years after the decease of St. John do manifestly shew that the superiour Authority of Bishops was then established in the Church and therefore certainly by Apostolical Institution And the Authority of these Epistles has been so demonstratively cleared from all Exceptions by Bishop Pearson that there is now no Contreversie about it 4. Mr. Chillingworth at the end of his Book has plainly demonstrated the Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy and he Sums up his Demonstration in these Words Episcopal Government is acknowledged to have been received universally in the Church presently after the Apostles times Between the Apostles times and this presently after there was not time enough for nor possibility of so great an Alteration And therefore there was no such Alterat on as is pretended And therefore Episcopacy being * By Peter du Moulin Beza Chamier Nic. vedetius whom he cites as Confessing it confessed to be so Antient and Catholick must be granted also to be Apostolick Quod erat Demonstrandum And I hope this Minister will condescend to answer this Demonstration when he writes again or however be so modest as not to conclude so confidently when he has proved nothing But behold the Chair of Infallibility Wherefore I say that Ordination by the hands of the Pastors of Churches filled with the Holy Ghost is much more elegible than by Diocesan Bishops a very peremptory Decree but we must not question it for Pythagoras hath said so yet thus much I presume to Answer that Diocesan Bishops are filled with the Holy Ghost as well as parochal Pastors and that Schismaticks have no Title to it We come now to his Third Reason of Non-Conformity the Declaration of Assent and Consent required in the Act of Vniformity to the Book of Common-Prayes And 〈◊〉 He can't Assent to that passage in the Athanasian Creed where it is said that every one that doth not keep that Faith whole shall without doubt perish Everlastingly Now it is certain the Athanasian Creed is entirely * The Judgment of Foreign Reformed Churches p. 32 33. received and approved by all the protestant Churches in the World excepting only the Antitrinitarians as hath been lately observed and therefore this Minister is herein a Non-Conformist to all Protestant Churches as well as to the Church of England and they are all Condemned together as practising a point of Popery in damning all that differ from them Let us see now the Reason upon which all Protestant Churches are condemned by him One Article says he of that Creed is about the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son which the Greek Churches did not believe nor receive and supposing them in an Error he adds I must be very bold if I leap into the Throne of Judgment and pronounce them damned I am as much afraid as he is of invading Christ's Tribunal and pronouncing any one damned much more a whole Church and such a Church as comprehends so many Millions of Christians But 1. The Differences between the Greek and Latine Church about the Article of Procession is by Mr. Field of the Church lib. 3. c. 1. Loads Conf. p. 16. Pearson on the Creed p. 324. Learned men affirmed to be only verbal because the Greeks acknowledged under another Scripture Expression in the same thing which the Latines understand by Procession viz. that the Spirit is of or from the Son as he is of and from the Father That as the Son is God of God by being of the Father so the Holy Ghost is God of God by being of the Father and the Son as receiving that infinite and eternal Essence from them both Thus Bishop Pearson upon the Article and if so it be then there is no difference about the Doctrine it self but only about the word Procession But says this Minister The Procession of the Holy 〈◊〉 Ghost is a most profound Mystery and very much obscured by bringing in word Procession and is not this a most profound Objection Is it not rather profound Non Sense to say that the Procession is obscured by the word Procession And how does the expressing that Mystery by Procession any more obscure it than the infinite Duration of God is obscured by calling it Eternity But the Scripture on that occasion never uses the word In relation to the Father it is used * John 15.26 expresly and in Relation to the Son it is contained virtually in Scripture where the Holy Ghost is often said to be the Spirit of the Son and that is all which is understood by proceeding from him and if no words are to be admitted that are not found in Scripture the old-Subtersuge of the Arrians we
Canons and Separation for them is alike unlawful He observes further that there were several Liturgies allowed even in the Roman Communion and that this Branch of the Churches Liberty was taken away by the Council of Trent and here in England by the Reformation And what was that Liberty which was thus abridged Not an Arbitrary Liberty in every Pastor of a Parish to use what Form he pleased but the use of different Rules of Prayer that were before prescribed and practiced in different National Churches and Dioceses The different Offices in England as those for instance after the use of Sarum and York did agree in Substance they had the same Forms of Prayer and differed for the most part in Rubricks and Ritualities only and when our first Reformers established an uniform Order it was not esteemed an Encroachment upon Christian Liberty neither are Unity Order and Uniformity the less valuable because Councils and Popes were for them 5. His next Reason is an Invective against the Introducers of Liturgies and in the midst of it he defines ex Cathedrd That the Liturgies which bear the great Names of S. James Peter Mark Basil and Chrysostome are known Forgeries That they are ent rely genuine as they are now extant is affirmed by no one but that they are Forgeries quite throughout and especially the Liturgy ascribed to St. James is so far from being known that we may safely affirm that it is impossible to know it And the contrary opinion of so Learned men as See Falkners Vindication p. 149. Baronius Ddurantus Leo Allatius Sixtus Senensis Possevinus Pamelius and others among the Romanists Dr. Hammond Thorudike Falkner Casaubon Salmotius Durel and some other Protestants will bear me out in affirming it But behold the Modesty Charity and Humility of this Minister 'T was the Ignorance Carnality Sloth and Laziness of the Clergy together with their Pride which first brought in and imposed Service-Books on the Churches When the Church began to be an Harlot when Bishops were not Silver Trumpets but tinkling Cymbals c. when in Councils as of Ephesus and Chalcedon they profest they did literas ignorare and could not write their own Names to confirm their Canons then came in our Liturgies Thus far the Son of Thunder but I take heart again for find it is brutum fulmen and our Prayer-Books are in no danger from it The Falshood and weakness of this Raillery is Schol. Hist part 2d p. 276. sufficiently exposed already and it is impossible such stuff should impose upon any but the greatest Bigots of Fanaticism Ignorance Carnality Pride and Laziness brought in Liturgies he might as well have said that Burglary or Vsury did introduce them if Pride and Ignorance brought in Liturgies why are they not read in Conventicles for In his Cure of Divisions Mr. Baxter hath complained to all the World that the People who frequent them for their Ignorance Injudiciousness Pride and Self-conceitedness are their Grief and their Shaine and certainly we may believe him But if Pride and Ignorance brought in Litugies we remember well then Entbusiasm Sacriledge and Rebellion did eject them We have Preface to Dr. Still Vnreasonableness of Separation had convincing Proofs that the Jesuits first brought extempore Prayers into England those Missionaries of Antichristian were the first Teachers of them and when Presbyterian Ministers were Trumpets to Rebellion when their Sermons and their Arms brought the best of Kings to the Scaffold when the Church was rent in pieces with damnable Doctrines when Jeroroham's Priests profaned the Pulpits and the Altars when the Stalls and the Shambles were the chief Schools of the Prophets when all Religion was vanished into Cant and Blasphemy and Nonsense were entitled to the Holy Spirit then were Liturgies first abolished and extempore Prayers first universally practised in any Christian Nation in the World But Liturgies he says were brought in when the Church began to be an Harlot Smectymnius * Answer to Remonst p. 7. derived their Pedigree from Three Canons of the Laodicean Carthaginian and Milevitan Councils and thus they are allowed to be in use about 1300 years since and has the Church been a Whore for so many Ages has she forsaken her Spouse so long has she renounced Christ Jesus for 13 Centuries together Yes and much longer too when we dispute about Episcopacy for when we come to that Controversie the Mystery of iniquity was working even in the times of the Apostles and the Church did then begin to be an Harlot also so little do some men care how they wound our common Christianity and condemn the whole Catholick Church of Christ so they may but vent their Malice against Liturgies and Bishops But because he cannot deny that Liturgies were introduced in the 4th and 5th Centuries he particularly Rallies upon the Ignorance of the Bishops of those Ages And were those ever reputed ignorant Ages when was the Church better enlightned with Learning than when Chrysostome Basil Nyssene Nahianhen Epiphanius the two Cyrills Lactantius Ambrose Jerome Augustine Isidore Pelus Theodoret Vincentius Gennadius and many others were the Luminaries of it But among these Gnosticks even the Mechanicks and the Women have been thought more able Divines than the Fathers and indeed if Ability is to be measured by the Gift of Prayer as they call it they may vye Learning even with their own Teachers for their most ignorant Zealots do often pray with as much fluency of words with as much pretence to the Spirit and which is the main Gift with as much Confidence as the ablest Ministers among them But the Bishops of Ephesus and Chalcedon could not write their Names and Mr. Clarkson indeed produces the Subscriptions of Three or four to prove it And to * Schol. Hist pt 2. p. 300. this it is replied That those Subscriptions are of no credit as being suspected of Forgery but suppose there were four Bishops among 830 in those Councils who were so illiterate is it not a very impudent Calumny to say indefinitely as he does That the Bishops of Ephesus and Chalcedon could not write their Names to confirm their Canons might it not as well be said that the Assembly of Divines at Westminster were Independants because there were Five of that Sect among them or that the Nonconformists Ministers of this Age have generally died as Traitors because Two or three were executed for being in Monmouths Rebellion His last Reason concerns the imposing of Liturgies and here he denies not the Lawfulness of them but after he has begged the belief of his Followers That they were not used in the Primitive times for many Hundred of years he pretends to prove the unlawfulness of imposing them Now one would think it a very plain Case that things lawful in themselves may be lawfully enjoyned by lawful Authority but this Minister is of another opinion and the only Reason he gives for the unlawfulness of prescribing Forms is this
cannot make the Communion of such a Church sinful nor justifie Separation and hence any one may discern how impertinent to this purpose are all this Ministers Clamours about Reformation for though the pursuit of it may be commeadable and the Church may need it yet it is evident his Nonconformity and Separation cannot be justified by it for there is no Church upon Earth which needs not Reformation and if Men may separate where they see any thing amiss this Principle will carry them to a Separation from all Christian-Society and that is a plain Demonstration of the Faishood of it I have now considered and weigh'd all his Pleas for Nonconformity and having found them light and deceitful in the Ballance having sufficiently prov'd them to be false and fallacious I conclude that the Nonconformists were not persecuted for Righteousness sake and that his * P. 24. virulent Reproaches of the Church of England in Prophetick Language are no better than Blasphemy and a contumelious Prophanation of Gods word by making it the Instrument of his Spite and Animosity And one Ressection more will make it yet more evident that they did not suffer for Righteousness it is this that tho his Pleas be allowed to have Truth and Reason in them yet they will not justifie the Dissenters Separation Every one knows that these Ministers were not punished for not conforming as Ministers but for setting up Conventicles tho they could not Act as publick Ministers yet they might have adher'd to the Communion of the Church and then they would have been in no danger of Persecution they suffered for their Separation and if all this Ministers Objections will not justifie it they will not justifie their Sufferings for it The Plea of Reformation I have shewn already to be insufficient and it is evident that Lay Dissenters are unconcerned in all the others they were neither ablig'd to renounce the Covenant nor the Lawfulness of Resistance nor the Ordination of Presbyters nor to declare their Assent and Consent to the Common-prayer and this Minister himself denies not the Lawfulness of their joyning in it Thus he hath left all his Congregation without any defence and it remains that they suffered not for Righteousness but for an unrighteous and indefensible Separation Let us see whether the same Objections will justifie his own Separation Suppose the Oath of Non-resistance to be unlawful was that a term of our Communion was it required of all that come to our Prayers or Sacraments and might he not have adhered to the Communion of our Church without swearing or declaring it be it granted next that Reordination is unlawful to be comply'd with was that likewise any term of Communion in Worship and Sacraments And if they could not Preach as Ministers could they not Communicate as Laymen and is the unlawful silencing of a Minister to be revenged with Schisin The next point is the use of the Liturgy and is there any thing unlawful in all our Prayers if he cannot Consent to some Passages in the Rubrick or in a Creed that is very Seldom recited yet there is nothing sinful in our ordinary Worship and the occasional Communion allow'd by the Presbyterians themselves is a clear Confession of it And Lastly as to the Covenant if it must not be renounced cannot they worship God in our Churches without renouncing it or does it at all oblige them to Separation Mr. * Defence of Cure p. 68. Baxter has prov'd that the Covenant binds them to Communion with our Church because it binds to Reformation according to the Example of the best reformed Churches but all reformed Churches in Christendom do commonly profess to hold Communion with the English Churches in the Liturgy if they come amongst us where it is used therefore says he it seems to me to be Perjury and Covenant breaking to refuse Communion with the Churches that use the Liturgy as a thing meerly on that Account unlawful Thus Mr. Baxter and these Concessions are very remarkable that Separation on the Account of our Liturgy is unlawful that it is a breach of their Covenant and is condemned by all Reformed Churches and what new Pleas can this Minister produce to defend his Separation Will he urge the Pretence of necessity to Preach the Gospel and that therefore he was forced to separate because he could not do it in our Churches But if he was under the same necessity the Apostle was then he has surely the Commission and Authority of an Apostle but if he hath no Commission from God let me use the words of an antient * Mr. Giffard cited in the Vnreasonableness of Separ p. 80. Nonconformist it is the Devil that hath sent him forward to Preach against the Authority of the Church and the Prohibition of the Christian Magistrate In short they have neither the same Commission as the Apostles neither is there the same necessity of their Preaching for the Gospel is now planted in this Kingdom it is Preached in our Churches and it would not be extinguished if this Minister and his Brethren to use his own Seraphical Expressions were all them Dumb Dogs or Breasts without Milk or Bells without Clappers And withal it is here to be observed that it is evidently proved * Ibid p. 1. sect 8 9 10 11 17. that according to the Doctrine of the most learned Nonconformists of former times both their Separating and their Preaching are absolutely unlawful The Sum of all is this the Laws against the Dissenters were made for the security of the Church and State the Execution of them was not so cruel as is pretended their persecuting of the Government did extort it the Presbyterians themselves have always condemned Toleration they do ever persecute whenever they have Power this Minister declaims only against Persecution for the Truth but all his Pretences to Truth appear to be false and groundless and if they were admitted would not justifie Separation and therefore the result is this That his Call to Humiliation is an unreasonable Clamour and that it ought to have been directed to the Presbyterians themselves and especially to their Ministers who have been the most grievous Persecutors who have crubified Christ Jesus by dividing hith have torn his Body into pieces have separated from the whole Catholick Church under pretence of Reforming the Reformed Religion have Reproached and weaken'd it have been always undermining that Church which is the Bulwark of it have bound themselves by impious Oaths and very lately ebtred into an Alliance with the Papists to destroy it And lastly have suffered obstinately for an Unrighteous Chuse condemned by Reason and Revelation by the Universal Church of all Ages and by all the Reformed Churches in the World Having now Answer'd the whole Design if this Pamphlet and all that looks like Argument in it it would be superfluous to examine the Remainder and to reflect particularly on his malicious Hints and Intimations his Cant and Shtyr his abuse of Scripture his Uses and his Prayers which he Recommends to his People and wherein he Feaches them that Vile and Divilish Practice of turning Prayers into Libels and instructs them to Pray much worse than the Pharisee to commend themselves to God †See p. 27. As followers of the Lamb and the Lords Anointed and to accuse the Church-men before him as Dumb Dogs and Wolves and bloudy Persecutors Thus do they fill up the measure of their Fathers who sin their Prayers taught the People to Speak evil of Dignities and to Curse the best of Kings as a Bloudy Persecuting obdurate Tyrant Yet I cannot but take notice of his insolent Triumph for the Establishment of Presbytery in Scotland Now says he is fulfilled that which was spoken by the Prophet The Land of Zebulun c. The People which sate in Darkness saw great Light and to them which sat in the Region and Shadow of Death Light is sprung up And was this Prophecy never fulfilled till now It Presbytery the Messias whose Light is there foretold Did Nailor himself ever utter more Abominable Blasphemy Has the Virgin Daughter of Scotland proclaim'd a new Gospel which was not Preach'd before Is it the Evangelium Armatum or the Gospel of Xaverius or of the Whore of Babylon Hither to I thought that Episcopal Churches might have the Light of the Gospel but a new Light hath now discovered that they are all in Darkness and that all Christian Churches for 1500 Years together have been in the Regions of Death without Christ without the Light of the Gospel and consequently without Salvation One thing more I must observe that the Sermons and Writings of these Ministers do make it as clear as the Sun that all the projects of Vnïon with that Party are absolutely impracticable The Presbyterians are the only Dissenters that are thought capable of Comprehension but to take them into our Church we must cast out our Liturgy and our Bishops we must submit our Necks to the Iron Yoke of Presbytery in short we must destroy our Church if we will have an Vnion with them no Alterations will content them they who have they who have not taken the Covenant do think themselves bound to extirpate Prelacy and to Reform according to the model of Scotland they desire no Vnion and despise it when Treaties of Peace are proposed they make themselves ready to Battel their Hostility is Irreconcileable and the total Destruction of our Church is the sum of all their Endeavours and Designs But Oh! That our Lives were as good as our Religion and our Manners pure and primitive as the Constitution of our Church for then would God cover is under his Wings and he that hath deliver'd and doth deliver would still deliver us Our Church we know is Founded on a Rock let us depart from Iniquity and her Foundation shall stand sure and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it FINIS